Assessment sheet for Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast sub-region and for seven subdivisions

Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.59
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.23
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.16
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.11
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.77
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Abyssal 513.94 23384 7.69 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Upper bathyal sediment 36.76 2628 11910.24 2.41 54.73 1.49 0.73 0.43 0.25
Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 36.17 2508 13.19 0.00 0.60 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02
Offshore circalittoral sand 34.91 3107 9837.19 15.48 81.61 2.34 0.96 0.86 0.47
Offshore circalittoral mud 31.94 2741 7128.44 34.73 118.58 3.71 0.97 0.87 0.45
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 21.70 1491 424.71 0.00 11.12 0.51 0.41 0.18 0.11
Circalittoral sand 16.56 2141 260.78 14.21 46.20 2.79 0.80 0.57 0.21
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 12.53 1519 1736.97 8.20 30.27 2.42 0.98 0.89 0.44
Lower bathyal sediment 12.10 1281 27.34 0.04 0.15 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.09
Circalittoral coarse sediment 8.77 1304 151.57 20.31 53.33 6.08 0.96 0.83 0.24
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 7.26 1406 1478.26 2.69 14.47 1.99 0.91 0.72 0.36
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 7.05 1483 208.92 1.68 4.86 0.69 0.74 0.29 0.19
Circalittoral mud 6.41 1114 91.01 2.13 7.81 1.22 0.71 0.32 0.13
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 3.47 733 760.28 10.06 21.69 6.25 0.98 0.93 0.31
Circalittoral mixed sediment 2.99 519 30.41 0.37 15.64 5.23 0.81 0.51 0.11
Infralittoral sand 2.58 1030 52.32 0.19 0.47 0.18 0.37 0.08 0.04
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 2.08 943 17.86 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.40 0.06 0.11
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 1.74 411 475.34 0.00 1.61 0.92 0.53 0.32 0.18
Infralittoral mud 0.73 426 9.27 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.35 0.06 0.03
Unknown 0.56 888 50.97 0.05 0.42 0.75 0.41 0.25 0.02
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.51 387 2.62 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.46 0.04 0.13
Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.50 79 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.08
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.37 164 4.61 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.10

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.06 165.45 219.93 23.96 1.95 50.46 0 0 3.14 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 365.04 30.25 34234.50 3.76 131.31 2.09 0 0 0.31 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.15 41.35 41.85 16.49 1.18 9.50 0 0 2.45 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 6156.83 0.18 155.66 0.16 67.31 0.04 NA NA 0.10 NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 2.57 0.25 0.19 0.69 0.61 0.19 NA NA 0.78 NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 98.41 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 98.86 51.89 97.64
10 NA NA 99.04 36.50 89.84
15 NA NA 99.17 24.50 80.76
20 NA NA 99.27 16.13 68.20
30 NA NA 99.45 4.33 44.06
40 NA NA 99.59 3.58 28.00
60 NA NA 99.79 2.28 20.81
80 NA NA 99.92 0.27 8.00
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 0.00

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 26.98 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 62.27 87.55 93.35
10 NA NA 68.67 75.86 88.78
15 NA NA 73.04 63.74 84.18
20 NA NA 76.08 52.34 80.03
30 NA NA 81.58 35.37 69.33
40 NA NA 85.90 18.54 59.00
60 NA NA 92.57 13.66 34.37
80 NA NA 97.44 4.31 11.61
99 NA NA 99.96 0.00 0.00

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 91.88 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 96.13 43.87 80.00
10 NA NA 97.86 0.47 63.48
15 NA NA 98.64 0.00 41.71
20 NA NA 99.04 0.00 34.14
30 NA NA 99.40 0.00 11.39
40 NA NA 99.57 0.00 8.12
60 NA NA 99.80 0.00 0.14
80 NA NA 99.93 0.00 0.10
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 0.09

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 3.85 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 20.89 96.55 92.19
10 NA NA 29.64 92.63 85.27
15 NA NA 36.78 89.13 78.43
20 NA NA 43.08 84.98 70.87
30 NA NA 54.11 75.53 57.78
40 NA NA 63.87 66.44 45.56
60 NA NA 80.03 47.15 24.81
80 NA NA 92.01 24.95 9.34
99 NA NA 99.76 2.18 0.01

Bay of Biscay - shallow

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 3.32
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.92
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.80
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.56
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.08
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand 22.06 1564 2746.01 14.05 51.71 2.34 0.98 0.90 0.55
Offshore circalittoral mud 15.67 1234 1046.81 34.14 72.81 4.65 1.00 0.97 0.53
Circalittoral sand 10.07 1071 86.14 14.21 40.55 4.03 0.97 0.83 0.36
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 9.18 996 809.08 7.31 24.57 2.68 0.99 0.93 0.49
Circalittoral coarse sediment 8.23 1055 83.51 20.31 53.18 6.47 0.98 0.87 0.29
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 2.94 614 0.39 1.68 3.16 1.08 0.94 0.44 0.27
Circalittoral mud 2.67 534 10.91 2.13 5.41 2.03 0.92 0.59 0.22
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 2.09 377 179.35 2.60 5.38 2.57 0.99 0.93 0.48
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 2.05 293 28.74 10.02 17.12 8.36 1.00 0.99 0.44
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.85 391 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.57 0.09 0.13
Infralittoral sand 0.72 375 0.05 0.19 0.37 0.51 0.65 0.17 0.05
Infralittoral mud 0.37 199 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.36 0.06 0.03
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.36 288 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.57 0.04 0.15
Upper bathyal sediment 0.25 54 76.77 0.12 0.55 2.17 1.00 0.78 0.43
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.24 80 2.11 0.37 1.10 4.58 0.97 0.91 0.30
Unknown 0.20 403 2.11 0.05 0.11 0.58 0.62 0.35 0.04
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.06 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.04 0.08
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.01 64.51 134.08 23.92 1.85 49.29 0 0 3.13 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.77 6.35 4971.49 3.76 87.42 2.03 0 0 0.31 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.15 41.34 36.75 16.46 1.13 9.31 0 0 2.45 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 115.82 0.10 37.08 0.16 47.24 0.04 NA NA 0.10 NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 22.48 0.64 0.27 0.69 0.61 0.19 NA NA 0.78 NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 2.12 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 17.65 95.18 93.06
10 NA NA 26.57 90.94 84.94
15 NA NA 33.77 86.05 78.35
20 NA NA 40.41 81.70 69.04
30 NA NA 51.78 72.30 53.29
40 NA NA 62.37 63.83 34.17
60 NA NA 79.45 45.10 8.63
80 NA NA 91.95 23.27 2.14
99 NA NA 99.81 1.53 0.04

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 0.15 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 15.62 96.68 81.53
10 NA NA 25.74 93.21 70.15
15 NA NA 35.20 89.88 55.11
20 NA NA 43.14 86.14 45.04
30 NA NA 57.23 77.82 25.76
40 NA NA 68.18 69.18 9.95
60 NA NA 84.11 47.83 1.18
80 NA NA 93.94 22.57 0.35
99 NA NA 99.87 1.02 0.01

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 3.12 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 28.71 93.80 95.18
10 NA NA 36.80 88.42 90.25
15 NA NA 43.37 83.20 85.47
20 NA NA 48.73 77.87 78.12
30 NA NA 60.05 68.08 52.28
40 NA NA 69.19 58.02 35.23
60 NA NA 83.40 37.91 9.28
80 NA NA 93.66 18.18 2.60
99 NA NA 99.80 1.66 0.06

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 1.06 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 11.62 94.57 91.89
10 NA NA 22.58 89.66 83.22
15 NA NA 31.81 84.94 73.80
20 NA NA 38.60 79.25 68.92
30 NA NA 51.97 69.69 52.71
40 NA NA 63.56 60.34 34.21
60 NA NA 80.95 39.74 18.91
80 NA NA 92.53 20.50 2.83
99 NA NA 100.00 1.21 0.00

Northern area deep

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.13
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.09
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.04
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.03
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.91
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Abyssal 329.39 15530 7.15 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Upper bathyal sediment 22.96 1602 9383.41 2.29 30.44 1.33 0.75 0.42 0.24
Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 21.19 1456 7.77 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02
Lower bathyal sediment 12.05 1264 24.62 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.09
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 5.71 520 187.57 0.00 1.05 0.18 0.22 0.08 0.07
Offshore circalittoral sand 2.73 347 1120.34 1.42 8.07 2.96 0.99 0.90 0.44
Offshore circalittoral mud 2.09 260 808.36 0.57 4.80 2.30 0.99 0.92 0.47
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 1.99 195 351.49 0.89 4.34 2.18 1.00 0.92 0.52
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 1.19 211 335.70 0.00 0.81 0.68 0.46 0.26 0.18
Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.50 79 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.08
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.29 48 67.82 0.09 0.59 2.04 0.90 0.88 0.42
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.08 35 49.34 0.04 0.25 3.35 0.98 0.96 0.34
Unknown 0.05 20 35.66 0.00 0.22 4.72 1.00 1.00 NA
Circalittoral sand 0.00 3 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.20 0.20 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 5.22 44.36 0.03 0.08 1.17 0 0 0.01 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.00 3.44 12352.73 0.01 25.42 0.06 0 0 0.00 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0.01 5.08 0.03 0.04 0.19 0 0 0.01 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 16.13 0.66 278.46 0.23 338.03 0.05 NA NA 0.13 NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 22.99 0.00 0.11 0.80 0.60 0.16 NA NA 0.85 NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 97.83 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 98.45 54.70 97.67
10 NA NA 98.69 44.48 94.17
15 NA NA 98.87 33.64 84.61
20 NA NA 99.02 24.50 77.72
30 NA NA 99.25 11.84 54.93
40 NA NA 99.44 4.33 36.63
60 NA NA 99.72 3.11 18.88
80 NA NA 99.89 1.88 5.78
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 0.00

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 25.14 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 62.42 87.75 96.10
10 NA NA 69.09 75.73 92.79
15 NA NA 73.27 65.37 89.28
20 NA NA 76.32 54.60 85.75
30 NA NA 81.44 37.00 76.81
40 NA NA 85.23 21.65 68.15
60 NA NA 91.68 14.57 47.08
80 NA NA 96.78 8.35 24.15
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 1.84

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 95.17 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 96.61 52.99 87.70
10 NA NA 97.72 52.99 81.10
15 NA NA 98.38 43.87 76.05
20 NA NA 98.80 0.47 70.32
30 NA NA 99.48 0.47 60.22
40 NA NA 99.87 0.00 41.61
60 NA NA 100.00 0.00 13.68
80 NA NA 100.00 0.00 13.68
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 13.68

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 78.61 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 89.55 94.25 96.22
10 NA NA 92.66 90.88 91.51
15 NA NA 94.68 87.91 86.03
20 NA NA 95.67 83.77 80.62
30 NA NA 97.05 77.90 67.65
40 NA NA 98.27 68.58 59.23
60 NA NA 99.47 45.91 48.31
80 NA NA 99.77 30.58 16.24
99 NA NA 100.00 15.29 0.01

Northern Iberian Coast

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 1.38
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.78
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.53
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.40
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.22
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand 7.46 790 5712.82 0.01 16.00 2.14 0.97 0.80 0.41
Offshore circalittoral mud 5.18 508 4522.39 0.02 12.16 2.35 0.99 0.87 0.45
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.33 590 1179.91 0.00 4.84 1.45 0.87 0.59 0.33
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 2.59 513 204.48 0.00 0.60 0.23 0.59 0.15 0.20
Circalittoral sand 2.03 510 139.90 0.00 0.55 0.27 0.61 0.16 0.14
Upper bathyal sediment 1.46 189 1289.99 0.00 3.73 2.56 0.99 0.79 0.46
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 1.23 298 570.63 0.00 1.23 0.99 0.93 0.64 0.35
Circalittoral mud 0.93 214 12.80 0.00 0.45 0.48 0.63 0.17 0.08
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.78 348 17.82 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.41 0.05 0.14
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.73 173 647.56 0.00 1.85 2.55 0.96 0.86 0.34
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.45 216 67.64 0.00 0.15 0.34 0.84 0.26 0.21
Infralittoral sand 0.44 290 4.77 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.38 0.04 0.12
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.43 105 6.93 0.00 0.15 0.35 0.73 0.12 0.16
Infralittoral mud 0.14 105 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.02 0.12
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.12 46 1.40 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.27 0.06 0.17
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.09 36 112.79 0.00 0.34 3.57 0.89 0.83 0.33
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.04 63 2.19 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.50 0.11 0.17
Unknown 0.03 273 6.35 0.00 0.03 1.14 0.73 0.57 0.01
Lower bathyal sediment 0.00 1 2.71 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.00 1.00 NA
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.00 2 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.00 1.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.02 10.38 31.79 0.00 0.02 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 104.08 5.47 14395.44 0.00 18.46 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 4343.54 0.53 452.86 0.19 743.10 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.41 NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 3.04 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 25.98 67.58 94.28
10 NA NA 34.51 59.45 88.46
15 NA NA 41.36 59.45 82.95
20 NA NA 47.62 59.45 77.26
30 NA NA 57.80 0.00 65.78
40 NA NA 66.96 0.00 54.23
60 NA NA 81.15 0.00 34.34
80 NA NA 91.75 0.00 14.50
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 0.10

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 1.32 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 19.91 82.48 94.66
10 NA NA 27.15 73.93 89.56
15 NA NA 32.58 73.88 82.38
20 NA NA 39.09 73.88 73.99
30 NA NA 50.23 73.86 60.36
40 NA NA 61.76 0.17 47.48
60 NA NA 79.39 0.00 25.59
80 NA NA 93.02 0.00 6.83
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 0.68

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 12.82 100.0 100.00
5 NA NA 36.64 83.5 91.17
10 NA NA 47.90 83.5 81.81
15 NA NA 55.70 83.5 73.81
20 NA NA 61.91 0.0 65.35
30 NA NA 70.99 0.0 51.83
40 NA NA 78.52 0.0 37.62
60 NA NA 88.79 0.0 20.92
80 NA NA 96.33 0.0 5.85
99 NA NA 100.00 0.0 0.01

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 40.67 100.00 100.00
5 NA NA 68.01 12.53 83.81
10 NA NA 76.07 3.67 78.76
15 NA NA 81.86 0.00 73.63
20 NA NA 84.05 0.00 67.23
30 NA NA 88.69 0.00 53.84
40 NA NA 92.00 0.00 40.89
60 NA NA 96.90 0.00 17.30
80 NA NA 99.23 0.00 5.72
99 NA NA 100.00 0.00 0.00

Southern Iberian Coast

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 2.62
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.68
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.50
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.35
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.32
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral mud 6.47 495 540.09 0 22.37 3.46 0.89 0.79 0.43
Circalittoral sand 2.59 382 6.99 0 4.97 1.92 0.64 0.30 0.12
Circalittoral mixed sediment 2.17 305 14.07 0 14.38 6.62 0.82 0.57 0.15
Offshore circalittoral sand 1.68 295 215.63 0 5.26 3.13 0.88 0.79 0.36
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.39 311 48.86 0 3.40 2.44 0.92 0.70 0.32
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.37 280 3.99 0 1.09 0.79 0.67 0.27 0.16
Circalittoral mud 1.08 227 0.34 0 1.94 1.80 0.58 0.27 0.07
Infralittoral sand 0.84 213 0.02 0 0.04 0.05 0.21 0.03 0.05
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.51 180 20.85 0 2.20 4.33 0.95 0.87 0.27
Upper bathyal sediment 0.32 77 85.05 0 1.23 3.90 0.93 0.86 0.36
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.21 113 0.01 0 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.04
Unknown 0.14 117 2.99 0 0.04 0.27 0.11 0.05 0.02
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.07 42 0.00 0 0.00 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.12
Infralittoral mud 0.06 49 0.00 0 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.06 0.10
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.05 11 1.52 0 0.13 2.71 0.95 0.88 0.36
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.03 21 0.02 0 0.06 1.81 0.95 0.86 0.19
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.02 13 1.13 0 0.04 1.71 0.57 0.55 NA
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.00 1 0.04 0 0.00 4.56 1.00 1.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.03 51.50 5.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.29 10.72 930.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 11.37 0.21 159.22 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 10.74 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 31.16 NA 97.69
10 NA NA 37.56 NA 95.30
15 NA NA 43.85 NA 89.41
20 NA NA 49.18 NA 84.77
30 NA NA 59.25 NA 73.04
40 NA NA 68.41 NA 60.21
60 NA NA 82.16 NA 39.62
80 NA NA 93.03 NA 14.47
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.02

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 35.57 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 76.26 NA 88.57
10 NA NA 79.78 NA 55.13
15 NA NA 81.89 NA 50.32
20 NA NA 84.28 NA 44.33
30 NA NA 87.28 NA 39.60
40 NA NA 90.36 NA 9.30
60 NA NA 94.75 NA 7.07
80 NA NA 97.84 NA 4.11
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 1.57

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 18.29 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 54.34 NA 81.94
10 NA NA 60.27 NA 76.24
15 NA NA 64.89 NA 72.10
20 NA NA 68.34 NA 65.33
30 NA NA 76.36 NA 11.72
40 NA NA 81.82 NA 10.13
60 NA NA 89.37 NA 7.41
80 NA NA 96.76 NA 4.13
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 1.41

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 12.00 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 30.00 NA 98.13
10 NA NA 35.52 NA 95.57
15 NA NA 40.49 NA 91.51
20 NA NA 45.44 NA 88.96
30 NA NA 54.24 NA 83.04
40 NA NA 63.22 NA 71.60
60 NA NA 77.34 NA 51.18
80 NA NA 90.29 NA 25.28
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 1.86

Gulf of Galicia

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.07
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.42
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.06
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.11
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.58
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Circalittoral sand 1.86 162 26.94 0 0.12 0.07 0.34 0.06 0.07
Circalittoral mud 1.73 132 66.96 0 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.10
Offshore circalittoral mud 1.21 76 113.52 0 0.16 0.13 0.92 0.10 0.21
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.65 46 0.85 0 0.13 0.20 0.58 0.16 0.24
Infralittoral sand 0.59 123 47.49 0 0.04 0.08 0.25 0.07 0.04
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.23 58 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03
Infralittoral mud 0.16 59 7.53 0 0.02 0.10 0.37 0.09 0.05
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.15 26 7.30 0 0.00 0.03 0.68 0.03 0.12
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.13 23 3.22 0 0.00 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.13
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.13 58 0.06 0 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.11 31 0.42 0 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.03
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.10 32 0.42 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.03
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.07 12 4.26 0 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.03 NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.05 15 10.27 0 0.02 0.42 1.00 0.31 NA
Upper bathyal sediment 0.04 17 2.70 0 0.01 0.23 0.71 0.18 NA
Unknown 0.01 15 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 4 0.00 0 0.00 0.16 0.06 0.06 NA
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0.49 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 259.51 0.05 99.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 134039.25 0.10 1560.79 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 65.61 NA 1e+02
5 NA NA 89.11 NA 3e-01
10 NA NA 90.70 NA 5e-02
15 NA NA 91.13 NA 5e-02
20 NA NA 93.55 NA 5e-02
30 NA NA 94.72 NA 4e-02
40 NA NA 96.17 NA 4e-02
60 NA NA 98.67 NA 3e-02
80 NA NA 100.00 NA 2e-02
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 2e-02

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 48.71 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 81.95 NA 43.62
10 NA NA 88.57 NA 19.07
15 NA NA 93.78 NA 9.02
20 NA NA 96.25 NA 8.42
30 NA NA 98.61 NA 2.82
40 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.32
60 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.32
80 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.32
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.32

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 8.41 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 62.91 NA 69.26
10 NA NA 74.01 NA 66.21
15 NA NA 78.90 NA 60.07
20 NA NA 82.01 NA 56.13
30 NA NA 89.21 NA 40.56
40 NA NA 92.65 NA 35.92
60 NA NA 98.27 NA 15.63
80 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.11
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.11

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 42.49 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 59.18 NA 49.84
10 NA NA 70.10 NA 49.72
15 NA NA 77.98 NA 2.03
20 NA NA 81.82 NA 2.02
30 NA NA 86.70 NA 1.97
40 NA NA 93.59 NA 1.56
60 NA NA 96.53 NA 1.40
80 NA NA 100.00 NA 1.14
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 1.14

Southern area deep

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators values
Intensity (I-1) 0.16
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.09
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.04
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.03
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.91
Average PD impact NA
Average L1 impact NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 10 6 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average fishing intensity I 1 Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 Prop of area fished per year I 3 Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Abyssal 184.55 7854 0.54 0 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 15.96 955 235.96 0 10.02 0.63 0.47 0.21 0.14
Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 14.98 1051 5.39 0 0.52 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.03
Upper bathyal sediment 11.74 689 1072.31 0 18.78 1.60 0.65 0.37 0.23
Offshore circalittoral mud 1.33 168 97.26 0 6.27 4.71 0.91 0.72 0.29
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 0.42 142 26.84 0 0.41 0.96 0.59 0.35 0.18
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.32 65 41.55 0 0.43 1.35 0.59 0.36 0.23
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.15 76 2.33 0 0.26 1.67 0.75 0.56 0.30
Unknown 0.15 26 3.86 0 0.02 0.12 0.19 0.03 0.08
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.06 36 3.53 0 0.25 3.98 0.99 0.83 0.33
Lower bathyal sediment 0.04 16 0.01 0 0.01 0.17 0.58 0.17 NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.01 7 0.00 0 0.00 0.33 0.56 0.33 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.01 11 0.00 0 0.00 0.01 0.43 0.01 NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 4 0.00 0 0.00 0.02 0.68 0.02 NA
Circalittoral sand 0.00 5 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.00 3 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Circalittoral mud 0.00 3 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Infralittoral sand 0.00 2 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.
X DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MIX OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 33.22 3.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.39 4.07 1485.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 41483.26 0.12 392.77 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 99.45 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 99.50 NA 88.87
10 NA NA 99.55 NA 70.71
15 NA NA 99.59 NA 58.45
20 NA NA 99.65 NA 58.42
30 NA NA 99.73 NA 58.34
40 NA NA 99.79 NA 58.29
60 NA NA 99.89 NA 58.12
80 NA NA 99.96 NA 7.52
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.04

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 52.93 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 79.19 NA 85.54
10 NA NA 84.29 NA 65.58
15 NA NA 87.15 NA 50.21
20 NA NA 89.28 NA 43.10
30 NA NA 91.98 NA 35.30
40 NA NA 94.30 NA 30.25
60 NA NA 97.25 NA 2.26
80 NA NA 99.01 NA 0.45
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.00

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 87.21 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 94.28 NA 86.45
10 NA NA 96.75 NA 60.16
15 NA NA 97.68 NA 38.16
20 NA NA 98.26 NA 15.52
30 NA NA 98.68 NA 0.49
40 NA NA 99.13 NA 0.44
60 NA NA 99.52 NA 0.34
80 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.21
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.21

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction PD impact L1 impact Unfished area Decline in value Decline in weight
0 NA NA 34.88 NA 100.00
5 NA NA 69.55 NA 67.11
10 NA NA 75.24 NA 60.35
15 NA NA 78.92 NA 53.89
20 NA NA 82.20 NA 49.30
30 NA NA 87.11 NA 40.44
40 NA NA 89.96 NA 28.71
60 NA NA 95.13 NA 3.02
80 NA NA 98.17 NA 2.20
99 NA NA 100.00 NA 0.00